Northstar Bunker N.V. v. Praxis Energy Agents LLC
Filing
35
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - Denying 28 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM. The Court holds that Venetiko's pleadings are sufficient to overcome a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M Hoyt) Parties notified.(sanderson, 4)
Case 4:20-cv-01195 Document 35 Filed on 12/03/20 in TXSD Page 1 of 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
NORTHSTAR BUNKER N.V.,
Plaintiff,
VS.
PRAXIS ENERGY AGENTS LLC,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
December 03, 2020
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20-CV-01195
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I.
Before the Court are the plaintiff’s, Northstar Bunker N.V. (“Northstar”), motion to
dismiss (Dkt. No. 28), the third-party defendant’s, Venetiko Shipping Corporation, (“Venetiko”)
response (Dkt. No. 31), and Northstar’s reply (Dkt. No. 32). After having carefully considered
the motion, the response, the reply and the applicable law, the Court determines that Northstar’s
motion to dismiss should be DENIED.
II.
This is a breach of contract case. Northstar sold bunker fuel to Praxis Energy Agents
LLC (Praxis), a fuel trader. Praxis then sold the fuel to Veneticko for its vessel. Claiming that
the fuel was defective, Venetiko refused to pay Praxis and Praxis refused to pay Northstar.
Seeking to recover the unpaid balance of the fuel invoice, Praxis sued Venetiko for breach of
contract.
In an effort to recover damages related to the physical harm sustained by the
Venetiko’s vessel as well as other losses associated with the fuel, Venetiko asserted
counterclaims against Praxis and Northstar. Ventiko asserts claims against Northstar for, breach
of implied warranties of fitness and merchantability, negligence, and product liability. Northstar
1/3
Case 4:20-cv-01195 Document 35 Filed on 12/03/20 in TXSD Page 2 of 3
moves to dismiss these causes of action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Additional facts are set out in a separate Memorandum Opinion and Order (DE 27).
III.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) authorizes a defendant to move to dismiss for
“failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Under the
demanding strictures of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “[t]he plaintiff’s complaint is to be construed in
a light most favorable to the plaintiff, and the allegations contained therein are to be taken as
true.” Oppenheimer v. Prudential Sec., Inc., 94 F.3d 189, 194 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing Mitchell v.
McBryde, 944 F.2d 229, 230 (5th Cir. 1991)). Even so, “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the
‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S. Ct. 2932, 92
L. Ed.2d 209 (1986)).
IV.
Northstar asserts that Venetiko’s counterclaims for breach of implied warranties of
fitness and merchantability, negligence and product liability should be dismissed because there is
no privity of contract between Northstar and Venetiko. It asserts that the two parties never
entered into a contract, verbal or written, for the purchase and sale of fuel, therefore, Venetiko,
third-party beneficiary claims fail. Northstar also argues that Venetiko’s claims of negligence
and product liability fail because Venetiko’s product liability claim does not rest on a basis for
which this Court may grant relief. Likewise, Northstar agrees, Venetiko’s complaint fails to
plead any actual damages that it suffered as a result of negligence or product liability even if any
plausible relief has been pleaded.
2/3
Case 4:20-cv-01195 Document 35 Filed on 12/03/20 in TXSD Page 3 of 3
Venetiko disputes Northstar’s position and motion to dismiss asserting, actual damages
because the fuel purchased from Northstar was defective and damaged parts of the vessel.
Assuming Venetiko’s pleadings to be true; therefore, the Court determines that
Northstar’s motion to dismiss should be Denied. According to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Rule 8(a)(2), “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the [factual allegations] need only ‘give the
defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S. Ct. at 1964). The Court holds that Venetiko’s pleadings are
sufficient to overcome a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
It is so Ordered.
SIGNED on this 3rd day of December, 2020.
___________________________________
Kenneth M. Hoyt
United States District Judge
3/3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?